Court order to be enforced by Sheriff, OPP

by Gary McHale - The Regional

April 8, 2009

On Friday April 3, Judge Henderson of the Superior Court ordered "an interim and interlocutory injunction restraining the Haudenosaunee Men's Fire of Grand River ('Men's Fire') or its members Dick Hill, and their servants, associates or agents whose identity is unknown, and John Doe and Jane Doe, Whose identities are unknown, and any other person having notice of this Order".

This ruling is as much against the failed policies of the OPP as it is against the repeated illegal actions of the Haudenosaunee Men's Fire (HMF). In the judge's ruling he states:

"[78] I also find that the actions of the HMF amount to both criminal and civil misconduct. Their actions have interfered with the property rights of Voortman and can be characterized as nuisance, trespass, extortion, intimidation, and inducing breach of contract."

Exactly how many criminal charges have the OPP laid against any member of the HMF in the past two years in regards to construction sites in Caledonia, Cayuga and Hagersville? The answer is NONE.

Where are the extortion charges against these groups?

I did get extortion, intimidation and mischief charges against Floyd and Ruby Montour for their illegal actions in Cayuga after the OPP stood around for weeks doing nothing. Only after I was successful at laying the charges did the OPP step forward and lay their own charge of mischief against the Montours. The Crown dropped the extortion and intimidation charges claiming it wasn't in the best interest of the public to prosecute the case.

This April 20th I have a Judicial Review in Superior Court to get the court to re-instate the charges of extortion and intimidation and to order the Crown to prosecute the case. This new ruling by a Superior Court Judge will provide additional evidence that such groups like HMF are involved in extortion.

The following paragraphs are also part of the injunction ruling:

"THE RULE OF LAW

[84] Before I conclude I would like to emphasize the rule of law. All people in Canada are governed by the rule of law as confirmed in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is, all people in Canada are required to obey the law. As a corollary, all people in Canada are entitled to know that every other person in Canada will be required to obey the law. If any person in Canada does not obey the law, the courts will enforce the law. In that way the public has some assurance that they can live in peace without fear of those who might choose to disobey the law.

[85] In the present case the representatives of the HMF delivered a message to this court that they did not accept the court process. Moreover, there was a veiled threat that if an injunction were to issue the HMF would have no choice but to continue their tactics of intimidation and criminal and civil disobedience. That threat does not alter or affect my decision today.

[86] The HMF clearly have a choice. An injunction will be issued today. The HMF may choose in good faith to abide by the injunction, live within the criminal and civil law, participate in peaceful demonstrations, and pursue whatever claim they believe they have through their own negotiations and/or court actions. They are not compelled, as was suggested, to disobey the injunction and engage in further criminal and civil misconduct.

[87] The rule of law means that the HMF will be required to obey any court order, just as any person in Canada would be required to obey a court order. The assertion of an aboriginal right does not permit any person, aboriginal or otherwise, to break the law...

[90] This Order will be enforced by the Sheriff of Haldimand County with the assistance of the O.P.P. I also order that Voortman and its designates may use reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing upon the property, and to remove any trespasser from the property in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada."

For all the talk by Commissioner Fantino and the OPP about keeping the peace this Judge has made it clear that the 'Rule of Law' ensures the public can 'live in peace without fear of those who might choose to disobey the law'.

It is the enforcement of the 'Rule of Law' that maintains peace in a democratic society. The wilful disregard of the 'Rule of Law' and of Court Orders by the OPP has allowed the lawlessness to exist within Haldimand County. Every community has those who are willing to break laws so it is vital for the police and crown to arrest and prosecute the law breakers to ensure people can live in peace.

The Judge stated, "If any person in Canada does not obey the law, the courts will enforce the law". However, the courts cannot 'enforce the law' unless the police make arrest.

If Mr. Fantino wants to 'keep the peace' then he should do everything he can to uphold the law. The endless statements by Mr. Fantino stating he doesn't know what the 'public expects from him' and about being 'meat in the sandwich' can be summed up as pure baloney.

The Police Service Act is quite clear about the duties of police officers which isn't limited to standing around and claiming you are 'keeping the peace'. Section 42(1) states the following:

"The duties of a police officer include, (a) preserving the peace; (b) preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention;

(c) assisting victims of crime; (d) apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody; (e) laying charges and participating in prosecutions;..."

Is it possible that these officers, who stood by as the Cayuga development or the current Voortman development was shut down, are unaware of criminal charges of mischief, intimidation and extortion? I think the OPP is well aware of the law but chooses not to uphold the law.

This ruling is just another 'second opinion' that demonstrates there is no legal question about whether you own your property or not. This ruling is an affirmation of so many other rulings across Canada where private ownership of property is upheld regardless of any so-called Native Land Claim. At some point the public will start to realize just how much the OPP and the Government have been lying to them in regards to property rights, duty to consult, colour of right and the rule of law.

The problem has never been in the understanding of the Criminal Code or who owns what property. The problem has always been, and remains, a problem of policing.